IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] Re: WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-08 (02/10/2026 - 02/24/2026)

李振强 <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com> Tue, 24 February 2026 10:25 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>
X-Original-To: idr@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF075BCF74A5; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 02:25:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=chinamobile.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PoafHTPqSjbJ; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 02:25:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmccmta2.chinamobile.com (cmccmta1.chinamobile.com [111.22.67.137]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBA45BCF73AA; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 02:24:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chinamobile.com; s=default; l=0; h=from:subject:message-id:to:cc:mime-version; bh=47DEQpj8HBSa+/TImW+5JCeuQeRkm5NMpJWZG3hSuFU=; b=EX271/huyXTn+QX6STzWv+5ITmVWhmnS3NxtrOfau+F4mZhYFUN78IBQ+VuaEU78Qd/8eFHMJHvTE Q0ZOY+GQY1NIQDv3wyat3jQET2MX4rxiAtGtWpRVd2fv2tyw8PFl06bdI9Z/SkUgUi0DrGYGx8A0h/ euKZOolkjzUSf3vs=
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[10.188.0.87]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app08-12008 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee8699d7c6e536-e75f0; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:24:47 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee8699d7c6e536-e75f0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com ( [10.1.17.150] ) by ajax-webmail-syy-appsvr03-11003 (Richmail) with HTTP; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:24:37 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:24:37 +0800
From: 李振强 <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>
To: idr <idr@ietf.org>, keyur <keyur@arrcus.com>
Message-ID: <2afb699d41d096c-002a9.Richmail.00006062354907783840@chinamobile.com>
References: <SJ0PR18MB3980F6326264C7AE067AC05FC162A@SJ0PR18MB3980.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_547399_187526061.1771928677684"
X-Priority: 3
X-RM-TRANSID: 2afb699d41d096c-002a9
X-PARTNER-PROJECT-ID: 0
X-RM-OA-ENC-TYPE: 0
X-RM-FontColor: 0
X-CLIENT-INFO: X-TIMING=0&X-MASSSENT=0&X-SENSITIVE=0
X-Mailer: Richmail_Webapp(V2.5.01)
Message-ID-Hash: SARVJ2M22AOLHZNPYN5CTM7ZFFQ6BID2
X-Message-ID-Hash: SARVJ2M22AOLHZNPYN5CTM7ZFFQ6BID2
X-MailFrom: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-idr.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: idr-chairs <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy <draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy@ietf.org>, 刘松 <liusongwl@chinamobile.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Idr] Re: WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-08 (02/10/2026 - 02/24/2026)
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jbKJMJZFSHVbHJVjJYpF0uKcynM>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:idr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:idr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:idr-leave@ietf.org>

Hello everyone,


The method proposed in this document is feasible and has already been used in China Mobile's field network. I believe this document can pass the WGLC with further polish and resolution of some technical concerns.
1. A consistent acronym format should be adopted for Flow-spec/Flowspec throughout the document. 
2. Clarification is needed on whether Service_id_x carried in PrefixSID is a mandatory requirement across all SRv6 application scenarios.
3. This document uses the PrefixSID defined in RFC8669 to carry SRv6 SID. It is unclear whether this will result in an update to RFC8669, and this point needs confirmation.
4. For the category of this document, I am not sure standard track is correct. Given that no IANA action is required, BCP (Best Current Practice) or Experimental may be more appropriate for the intended status.


To address the same problem, draft-li-idr-flowspec-sr-policy (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-flowspec-sr-policy/) proposes approaches for FSv2. We welcome comments and feedback on this document, too.


Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile



----邮件原文----

发件人：Keyur Patel  <keyur=40arrcus.com@dmarc.ietf.org>

收件人：idr  <idr@ietf.org>

抄　送: (无)

发送时间：2026-02-11 05:00:41

主题：[Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-08 (02/10/2026 - 02/24/2026)



 
 Hi Folks:   The working group last call has been issued for draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-08.txt, “Traffic Steering using BGP FlowSpec with SR Policy”. Please reply to the list with your comments. This adoption call will conclude on February 24th, 2026.   The draft can be found at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-08. The implementation report for the draft can be found in Section 4 of the draft. Please note that the version 5 of the draft has changed the status of the draft to “Standards Track” after the discussion on the mailing list.   Authors, please reply indicating whether you're aware of any relevant IPR that hasn't been disclosed.   Best Regards, Keyur

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status